Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

One record high may well be anecdotal as are individual record lows, so it is neccesary to compare the two as was done in a study in 2009 in which it was found that there were twice as many record highs as lows in the US in the 2000-2009 period

As the climate has warmed during the past several decades, there has been a growing imbalance between record daily high temperatures in the contiguous U.S. and record daily lows. A study published in 2009 found that rather than a 1-to-1 ratio, as would be expected if the climate were not warming, the ratio has been closer to 2-to-1 in favor of warm temperature records during the past decade (2000-2009). This finding cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone, the study found, and is instead consistent with global warming.

When you look at individual years, the imbalance can be more stark. For example, through late June 2012, daily record highs were outnumbering record daily lows by a ratio of 9-to-1.

The study used computer models to project how the records ratios might shift in future decades as the amount of greenhouse gases in the air continues to increase. The results showed that the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows in the lower 48 states could soar to 20-to-1 by mid-century, and 50-to-1 by 2100.

Andrew Freedman is the Senior Science Writer for Climate Central. This piece was originally published at Climate Central and was reprinted with permission.

This is the more important one tho

Quote:

Since 2000, in the average month, record highs (high maximum temperature) beat out record lows (low minimum temperature) by a two to one margin. This is exactly what has been found in previous peer reviewed studies  including this study, published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2009, by Climate Centrals Claudia Tebaldi and three other researchers.

But looking at these four types of records, it appears that nights have warmed even more: the average month recorded 10 percent more record high minimum temperatures than record high maximums.

The record low temperatures tell an even more compelling story: it was much more likely for the daytime temperature to be colder than average than it was for the nighttime ones.

There were only 1,235 record low minimum temperatures set per month, while there were 1,697 record low maximum temperatures set per month. By this measure, a record cold day was 40 percent more likely than a record cold night.

I'm just saying that to me, it seems your post offers no way to distinguish high temperatures at the peak of a cycle, from high temperatures at the onset of an ongoing warming trend.

I don't think we're at the peak of a centennial (or millenial, or any other) cycle, but based on your contribution, how would we know?

Also, I'm asking, given a hypothetical centennia warming-cooling cycle, why would we expect to see record lows in the same years as we saw record highs? Wouldn't we expect to see record highs and record lows at opposite ends of the cycle?

And really, the same is true for the asserted warming trend: why would we expect to see record lows in the same years as record highs?

You've read the study: Can you tell us why they were looking for record lows in the same years as record highs, and what conclusions we can reasonably draw from the fact that the found none?

Because based on their findings, I think I can reasonably conclude that their study just as easily supports a warming-cooling cycle, as it does a nonstop warming trend.

ok so you're admitting you have no evidence to support your centennial warming-cooling cycle speculation, and offer no theoretical reason why it should exist. There is however a very good theoretical reason why there should be a warming trend explained here;http://www.windows2universe.org/eart...ect_gases.html.

As for your question "why would we expect to see record lows in the same years as we saw record highs?" the simple answer is weather. Some days in May could be colder than some days in April (in the northern hemisphere) but that doesn't mean that summer's not on the way.
Every year a weather station somewhere is going to record it's hottest March day or coldest September day since records began and individually they just represent the noise in the system, just extreme once in a century events, even the current Australian heat wave could be viewed in this light on it's own.
But when there are a lot more hot events than cold events over several years this can be seen as supporting evidence for the AGW theory accepted by the majority of climate scientists and endorsed by every major scientific institution, though of course it could be seen as supporting a warming-cooling cycle theory that you just made up and don't even believe yourself.

A long dry spell in inland Australia, fewer cold fronts and the delayed onset of the monsoon in the country’s north had helped create today’s conditions but “the other thing at play here is climate change,” said Dr David Jones, Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction Services at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

“We know that inland Australia is a degree and a half hotter than it was 50 to 100 years ago. Every single day we have this background warming trend which effectively means the whole climate system operates on a higher base,” he said.

“If you look at maximum temperatures, we are now finding that the rate at which we get record high temperatures is three times faster than the rate at which we get record low temperature.”

In other words, he said, “for every record cold day we see, we get three record hot days.”

“The climate system is really strongly weighted over Australia now towards record heat… that’s quite a profound shift.”

Dr Jones said Australia “was now seeing record hot nights five times more frequently than record cold nights.”

Of course what deniers will now do is cherry pick this record heat wave in Australia and will compare it with next year's slightly lower average temperature and say "ha, it's cooling...", ignoring the unmistakeable trend.

__________________A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

(CBS News) They've never seen anything like it: Government scientists said Tuesday they're surprised by a jump in temperature that made 2012 the warmest year on record in the lower 48 states. Changes in temperature usually come in tiny fractions of a degree. But the average for 2012 -- 55.3 degrees -- beat the 1998 record, by one full degree.

2012 was also a near-record for weather disasters including drought, wildfires and storms. There were 11 disasters last year that topped $1 billion in damage each. Only 1998 was worse.

__________________A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

6 of Australia's hottest 20 days on record have occurred .... this year, not 2012. This year. And we're only 8 days in.

The first 6 days of 2013 all hit the top 20, and while there's a cool change through at the moment, the weekend and early next week is expected to be even hotter.

If there's a catastrophic fire alert this summer, we are getting out (we live in a high bushfire risk area). For the first time, we actually have a plan, and have all the passports, photos, birth certificates and so on in one place, ready to pack up and go.

__________________A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

If there's a catastrophic fire alert this summer, we are getting out (we live in a high bushfire risk area). For the first time, we actually have a plan, and have all the passports, photos, birth certificates and so on in one place, ready to pack up and go.

I don't think there's much question of "if", unfortunately.

I love Australia, but I'm glad for my children's sake that they have an alternative.

Stay safe.

__________________Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available

If there's a catastrophic fire alert this summer, we are getting out (we live in a high bushfire risk area). For the first time, we actually have a plan, and have all the passports, photos, birth certificates and so on in one place, ready to pack up and go.

Good move

Stay safe, mate, it's going to be a long one, could be looking at two weeks of these conditions

The fact that the avg temp rises and falls seems perfectly normal to me.

It mystifies me that anyone is concerned that it's currently rising.

Normal... to you. The "to you" bit is the problem here because clearly you don't have the qualifications nor the understanding of temperature averages to make such a judgement. And when it comes to the assurances of what seems normal to some guy on the internet who mindlessly repeats science denial talking points and the warnings of the BOM - I pick the BOM every time.

Quote:

Now, back when they were concerned that it was cooling, I was a child and that scared me.

The science behind the global cooling in the 70s is actually straight forward. It's call S02 emissions....recall the effort to get rid of acid rain ? S02 reduction reduced the offsetting cooling and the temperatures then rose as more C02 was pumped in by the industrial world.

The science is easy for those without their heads buried.
What to do about it and its consequences is is far from easy.

Now you can't claim ignorance anymore of this aspect of planet you live on

Normal... to you. The "to you" bit is the problem here because clearly you don't have the qualifications nor the understanding of temperature averages to make such a judgement. And when it comes to the assurances of what seems normal to some guy on the internet who mindlessly repeats science denial talking points and the warnings of the BOM - I pick the BOM every time.

"They" lol - and who are "they", pray do tell?

I haven't repeated any talking points at all. What are you talking about? You are just upset that I'm unconcerned about global warming.

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

If I'm unconcerned about climate variation, why would I care about my carbon footprint?

so its more that you do not want to do anything about AGW and not that you cannot.
do you believe the science behind climate pattern changes is flawed or is it just that you do not care because major impacts will be after you died anyway? got no kids?

so its more that you do not want to do anything about AGW and not that you cannot.
do you believe the science behind climate pattern changes is flawed or is it just that you do not care because major impacts will be after you died anyway? got no kids?

No, I don't have any kids. I have nieces and nephews.

I just don't think there's anything unusual about climate change.

The warms are getting warmer for the time being.

Meh.

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.